Golliwogs

[harpodom]

........have ya really. I think its more to do with your opinion and perception Dom. Seems to be an issue on here sometimes.

Headley Court..........give it a whirl. Effectionatley known as cripple manner by those who frequent it. I know some of them. I mean nothing derogatory whatsoever. Its a means to an end to have a sense of humor when ya have no legs and the guy in the next bed has no arms. They eman no harm either. Perception Dom. Get some.

Do you think by adopting a patronising tone that makes your point more valid? Cos it doesnt, it just makes you appear petty.

[Jackinabox]

Absolutely


Sometimes.......some words have the potential to carry offensive meaning without any preceding or following expletive


Never said there was


I'm just disagreeing with you.....it's not a moral horse I'm riding. The specific issue I'm disagreeing with you (and MackyD) on is the suggestion that "Paki" is the same as "Brit" - I think this is ludicrous. Had this not been stated by you two, I probably wouldn't have bothered replying to the thread


Yeah - people who are the potential targets of language like this are entitled to use it for those purposes, the reason most of 'em do it is precisely because of the negative connotations the words can carry when used by others...they are reclaiming the power of the word. That's OK - but it's their choice, and if they indicate it's OK for you to use them, that's OK too. But it's their call when it comes to words of that power. Back to Paul & deb's central point - it's about respect

Yet I am not here advocating its use in any way other than expressing my opinion at the word 'Paki' in my view and in the context of my use as being no different to the word...Brit, Jock, Taff, Yank, Afghani, Kanuk, Jew, Pole,..................i have no issue with the context I use it in and 'respect' doesnt enter my thought process as I have no altenative message.

[Jackinabox]

Do you think by adopting a patronising tone that makes your point more valid? Cos it doesnt, it just makes you appear petty.

Patronising? More valid? Petty?

Thought youd heard it all.........

[pintpot]

Again, thanks for the heads up on what I know

I'm going to keep telling you what you know if you persist in talking out of your posterior, so get used to it

, but if you check, what I said was that if it was a word used in the same context of Scot or Brit then it isn't offensive in itself.

If you're going to go scurrying into semantics, then that's not what you said either. You said if it was used in the same context as either of those words then that would be OK with you - the point you are missing is that it's not about you. It's a question of whether or not a South Asian person would be OK with it. I don't think they would, in the main. But feel free to try

The historical context is what attaches the meaning and this part in bold was my argument not whether it was OK to use the word or not. Neither was I suggesting that because it stemmed from the 70's that it had gone away, quite the opposite. What I was saying was, that this is what has given the word the moder-day context.

You also said it should be reclaimed because kids today didn't have that context.....which is suggesting that its potential to cause offence is over, or should be over, no?

[pintpot]

than expressing my opinion at the word 'Paki' in my view and in the context of my use as being no different to the word...Brit, Jock, Taff, Yank, Afghani, Kanuk, Jew, Pole,..................

It is different....in the same way that you might feel free to call someone "black" but you wouldn't call them "nigger" unless they'd said you could

[Shell15]

so if we have there permission its ok!! that's just laughable! A rule is a rule isnt it? ..one rule for one and one for another.. just plain ridiculous imo

[harpodom]

Patronising? More valid? Petty?

Thought youd heard it all.........

At the risk of sounding patronising, its a figure of speech, indicating that you've just heard something utterly ridiculous. Which I had. From you.

[pintpot]

so if we have there permission its ok!! that's just laughable! A rule is a rule isnt it? ..one rule for one and one for another.. just plain ridiculous imo

I think you're wilfully misunderstanding my point. My point is that certain words carry a high potential for offence.....those who are targets for those words can reclaim them and turn them away from the negative, and if you know 'em well enough, you probably can use them too.

It's not that complicated. Try it if you like. Go about your daily life and feel free to use words like Paki, nigger, spakker, boong, towelhead, (insert potentially derogatory term of your choice), whatever you like. Let us know how you get on. In the real world we all know the words that are OK and those that aren't.

The fact that some words used to be OK to use and now aren't isn't, IMO, a case of PC gone mad, not for words like that. It's just changing times, no big deal unless you choose to make it one

[Jackinabox]

It is different....in the same way that you might feel free to call someone "black" but you wouldn't call them "nigger" unless they'd said you could

There was a time not so long ago that the phrase 'half cast' was used frequently. Not sure why, where or how this came about. Those called it hated it and would say ffs just call me a 'nigger'. Others would prefare to be referred to as 'mixed race'. Dependent on who you spoke with and how they felt. White folk had a bit of a conundrum.......do we say 'half cast' or is it 'mixed race'. Which one was right/wrong? Then we have the 'black' issue. Can we refer to someone as being 'black' or is there something else we should be saying........African man etc etc etc. The advent of being PC created this to an extent.

None of which of course should really make any difference as long as nothing untoward/derogatory was meant in any term being used.

Would I call someone a 'nigger' if given permission?......absolutely not!

[Jackinabox]

At the risk of sounding patronising, its a figure of speech, indicating that you've just heard something utterly ridiculous. Which I had. From you.

What was rediculous Dom? Spit it out man. Cant you get your head round a group of squaddies making light of a predicament? Is that so alien to you? Is being directed to that very situation your definition of sounding patronising?